The news media has had a field day in headlining Anders Breivik’s actions as those of someone from the “far Right,” and as actions that are a consequence of Rightist ideology. Yet Breivik is an avid Zionist whose motives were predicated on Islamophobia. His ideological influences are libertarian and “neo-conservative.” He was playing his part, albeit as a loose cannon, in the “clash of civilizations.”

Although the news media has focused on his previous membership in the Progressive Party, his ideological commitment is to Zionism. Why then did not the news media headline Breivik’s atrocity as being that of a “Zionist,” and as a “stanch supporter of Israel”? As is often the case, the fictional “far Right” connection is a red herring. Headlines could have read “Zionist extremist on shooting spree,” “Israel supporter massacres youngsters at Labour camp in Norway,” and the like.

While Breivik advocates banning the Islamic religion from Europe, he seems to have been totally oblivious to the intrinsically anti-Christian nature of Orthodox Judaism,[1] and while he wrote at length on the supposed enmity between “Judaeo-Christianity” and Islam, he wrote nothing of the anti-Christian record of Israel,[2] including the demolition of Christian holy sites, and the common practice of spitting on Christian clergy in the Holy Land. Although he did recognize the historical predominance of Jews in Leftist movements, this is an acknowledgement of the rivalry within Jewry between liberals and leftists on the one side and “neo-conservatives” on the other, the latter being considered by Breivik to be his best potential allies in the fight against Islam. Breivik is Judaeophilic to the extent that he is Islamophobic, writing in his manifesto:

Regardless of what the Jewish communities motives are I think it’s imperative that they take a stance on multiculturalism and Muslim immigration as soon as humanly possible. They have to recognize that “multiculturalism” is the system that allows Europe to be Islamised and it’s obviously not in their interest to contribute to this. Jews will in a much larger degree start to support the ‘new right’ (just like everyone else), who oppose multiculturalism as a means to stop Islamisation, at least this is my hope. In the back of their minds they realize that a Muslim Europe will be more “anti-Semitic” than a Christian Europe. Muslims don’t have the guilt complex that Europeans have. Many Jews feel they are trapped between the ‘bark and the wood’, they are both skeptical of Muslim immigration on one side and of the nationalist far right wing movements on the other side. Nevertheless, time is off [sic] the essence and it is imperative that the European Jewish community without delay take a stance on the ongoing Islamisation. Neutrality on this issue is not an option. The only way of doing this is to back the new right wing (antimulticulturalism, pro-Israel) groups and political parties (also manifested through views such as by moderate Jewish writers such as Daniel Pipes and Bat Ye’or).[3]

Breivik’s opposition to Jewish leftists, as with his opposition to liberals and leftists of any type, is no more antagonistic towards Jews per se than the opposition of Jewish neo-cons towards Jewish leftists. The above passage from Breivik is in total accord with the pro-Zionist neo-con party-line.

Israel & Islam

The only “Right” that Breivik can be said to identify with is the Zionist extreme Right. This calls to mind the likes of the Jewish Defense League, Likud, the settler movement, etc. Breivik’s support for the expansion of Israeli borders north and south also reminds one of the “Greater Israeli Empire” that has always been a basis of the Zionist “extreme right.” He sees Israel as the vanguard in the fight against Islam, writing:

While most people refer to Israel’s security fence as a ‘wall’, the fact remains that less than 5 percent of the barrier is actually concrete slab. The rest is a network of fence and sensors. The fence has cut terrorism incidents by more than 90% since its completion. What was the reason for establishing the Security Fence Area? The Security Fence is being built with the sole purpose of saving the lives of the Israeli citizens who continue to be targeted by the terrorist campaign that began in 2000…[4]

Friday, July 29, 2011

(By Chris Moore, LibertarianToday.com) -- The White consciousness/nationalist set over at Occidental Observer has had some somewhat flattering assessments of Anders Breivik (if not his murderous actions) in the days since he undertook his terrorist assault. They’re mostly of the flavor of this guy had some rational grievances and was seriously ballsy to do what he did as opposed to any kind of formal approval, but there is an unquestionable air of…admiration?…respect?…sympathy?…in the flavor of the articles and comments.

Here are some of the headlines with links to the articles and comments:

The first and second articles above were written by Califronia State Long Beach Psychology professor Kevin McDonald, who is the proprietor of Occidental Observer, and also wrote a third article (The Political Ideas of Anders Behring Breivik) that has led to silly, censorious demands by Los Angeles Urban Policy Roundtable President Earl Ofari Hutchinson that "California State University Board of Trustees President Herbert L. Carter and the entire Board of Trustees condemn" MacDonald.

As someone who also recognizes multiculturalism is not what it purports to be, which is a kind of neutral “why can’t we all get along” ethno-ecumenicalism, but is rather a dangerous, murderous racket that seeks to divide rather than unite, that seeks tribalism and conflict instead of melting pot assimilation into Western values, I too have sympathy for opposition to multiculturalism. And yet, I consider Breivik a stupid psycho and, like many of the White advocates over at Occidental Observer, ultimately ineffective in the battle against the Trojan horse for authoritarian leftism that multiculturalism represents.

Indeed, ethnically conscious Whites (including the foolish and irrational Breiviks of the world) have more problems than they know in dealing with the multiculturalism-centered forces converging against them, for the following reasons:

1) Both state-capitalism and corporatist-capitalism, which have synthesized into liberal fascism (mostly controlled by Zionist Jewry and ambitious, greedy, cutthroat Whites) are on the side of massive immigration to fill their respective government and corporatist coffers by filling out their "markets" to their maximum potential. They have put multiculturalists in charge of arranging and greasing the skids for this open borders agenda, and masking its impact on the West. (Stupid psycho Breivik thus only went after the left half of the larger liberal fascist problem, and did so in a stupid and immoral way.)

2) Some Whites think they can follow the Zionist model to preserve their tribe, and hence become Zionist-Jewry lite Judeophiles (as apparently did stupid psycho Breivik, a staunch supporter of Zionism); hence they promote one wing of the very organized Jewish Zionist elite that is secretly hell bent on cutting their throats.

3) Jewish Zionists, and their White liberal fascist and Judeo-Christian Zionist paramours are also hell bent on bombing Islamic nations into oblivion, which drives huge numbers of Muslim refugees north, (stupid psycho Breivik approvingly cites all manner of neocon doctrine and its warlike, Muslim-bombing agenda), even as they claim anguish over the fact that these Muslim refugees are settting up shop in the West. This is literally insane, and Breivik's naked insanity is right in line with the insane policies of Zionists and liberal fascists.

4) Because post-WWWII Whites have not cultivated and protected what I would describe as the Greco-Christian, Western civilization model, identity and geist, and have instead succumbed to hyper-materialism, Jewish Zionist-like, shallow nationalist conceit and particularism (e.g. the neocon pied-pipers flattery of the U.S. as “the indispensable nation“), and money-worship, they are today more than willing to sell out the traditional peoples of their own civilization to Zionist Jewry and the liberal fascist agenda to serve their own narrow, short-sighted economic interests. Additonally this post-Christian, neo-Western, hyper-materialist model has made them unwilling to have large families or unable to afford families at all, or increasingly hostile to their own families and peoples as a pain in the ass “expense” (stupid psycho Breivik didn’t address how right-wing White narcissism, greed and fascism is as corrosive as cynical, left-wing, statist-racket greed revolving around the Marxist swindle, and equally hostile to the concept of Western civilization).

Hence, because tribal White nationalists don’t recognize the seeds of their own demise are in the very (narrow) world view to which they subscribe, they are never going to be able to defeat all of these forces, which have unquestionably been engineered by far more clever and Machiavellian minds; indeed, unlike organized Jewry’s expansive Machiavellian tribalism, White nationalist porcupine-like tribalism works against its own interests.

Western civilization and its White beneficiaries (and that’s what we are, not some “chosen” race in the Jewish mold as some Whites like to fancy themselves) are only going to be saved country by country working together towards a larger civilizational identity and consciousness, or not at all.

I’m not saying tribal racialist Whites following the Zionist model or one like it will disappear altogether, but they will cease to exist as a civilization and instead exist as warped, scheming, hyper-materialistic, money-grubbing parasites on whatever God-forsaken, perpetually-warring, multicultural tribal amalgamation prevails, and at the pleasure and mercy of the ruling multicultural-managing elites (including more than a few representatives of racist Zionist Jewry and its culture that cultivates murderous grudges and hatred of the goyim in general, and the White goyim in particular).

On the other hand, if Whites have become too narcissistic, self-absorbed and greedy to appreciate the fact that they are the beneficiaries of the most evolved, sublime and morally, ethically and technologically advanced civilization in the history of man with the Greco-Christian Western tradition, and fail as its caretakers, then maybe they deserve their fate.

***

Judeo-Christian Zionism’s once-feigned Judeophilia has become fact. Breivik embraced neocon doctrine, other than the fact that he acknowledges large percentages of Jews are nation-wreckers. For this reason, he probably wants most Jews out, but if that was his primary imperative, he would not have embraced neocon doctrine.

Maybe Christian Zionists once harbored secret desires to get the Jews out, but once Jewry penetrated so deeply into the American hierarchy, they threw in the towel and basically concluded, “If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em.”

Maybe Breivik fantasized that Judeo-Christian Zionist Whites would eventually turn on the Jews after dealing with the Muslims, but the Zionist disease has already spread too deeply into the Judeo-Christian Zionist marrow for this to ever happen.

For all their posing, these people are no longer even Christians, and neither, obviously, is Breivik.

I believe he is where neocon Judeo-Christian Zionism leads — repression and insanity, and too gutless to go after the real malefactors way down underneath the piles, and deep down knowing it.

Breivik should have become anti-Jewish. It might have saved his sanity and prevented all that bloodshed.

Suggestions that the “counter-jihadist” ideology spread by such websites as Frontpagemag.com, run by neocon David Horowitz, and the affiliated “Jihad Watch,” inspired – and provoked – the Norway killer Anders Behring Breivik have been met with cries of outrage by the neoconservative Right. This is hardly surprising: confronted with the sight of someone who put their hateful and inherently violent ideology into practice, what else are they supposed to do?...

...For what Breivik and the counter-jihadists are saying is that Islam is at war with the West – and that a “culture of appeasement” prevalent on our side of the barricades is delivering us to the Enemy. If you go through the material published by Robert Spencer, who is quoted in some 64 instances by Breivik, one central idea leaps out at you: we are at war with the one billion Muslims on the planet Earth. Not that we should be at war, or will be at war – the battle, in Spencer’s view, has already commenced, not on account of anything we in the West have done, but because Islamic doctrine is inherently violent and expansionist. Likewise, Pamela Geller, his collaborator in “Stop the Islamization of America” – and its European affiliate, which Breivik supported – denies the very existence of moderates in the Muslim camp. David Swindle, who writes for Horowitz’s website, describes the internal debate among counter-jihadists at one of their West Coast retreats:

“Breakfast begin [sic] with a debate between Robert Spencer and Dr. Zuhdi Jasser on the prospects for reform within Islam. Andrew McCarthy moderated and begin the talk by explaining that he still debates amongst himself over whether we’re at war with Islam or Islamism. This is a healthy debate to have and the position I find myself in at the moment. I’ll dissect Spencer and Jasser’s engaging back and forth once we have the video posted but in the mean time my position is basically that I embrace Spencer’s intellectual skepticism about the challenges reform faces but Jasser’s optimism and spirituality about the necessity of the project still wins me over.”

Even the hardcore ideologues within the Horowitzian camp find the blanket condemnation of an entire religion a bit hard to take. For if all Muslims are the Enemy, then Breivik’s agenda – mass deportations and/or mass murder – takes on an aura of legitimacy.

Spencer seems to realize this, which is why he has been backtracking and fuming over the sudden attention to his “work”:

“The hapless Adam Serwer in the Washington Post lies outright when he says that ‘most of Geller and Spencer’s blogging consists of attempts to tar all Muslims with the responsibility for terrorism….assigning collective blame for an act of terror through guilt-by-association.’ In ten books, hundreds of articles, and over 25,000 blog posts, I have never “attempted to tar all Muslims with the responsibility for terrorism,” and challenge Serwer to prove his claim.”

Horowitz “defends” Spencer by writing:

“Robert Spencer has never supported a terrorist act. His crime in the eyes of the left is to have told the truth about Islamic fanatics beginning with the Islamic prophet who called for the extermination of the Jews and said in his farewell speech that he was called to fight until all men say that there is no God but allah. (see Bruce Thornton’s article today’s Frontpage).”

While not coming right out and saying all Muslims should be deported and/or killed, Spencer – and Horowitz – believe Muhammad’s followers pose a deadly and imminent physical threat. Oh, and by the way, go read another Islam-is-evil rant, which supposedly proves Horowitz’s point. These people condemn themselves out of their own mouths.

Spencer is a fake-“scholar” whose innumerable polemics are all about the same thing: the intractable evil and danger posed by Islam. He believes there is a conspiracy to impose Sharia law on America, and annex the United States to a “global caliphate.” This is the stuff of pure fantasy, and yet anyone who takes it seriously and accepts its premises has to believe that the Muslim world must be challenged militarily – which is precisely what neoconservatives have been urging since well before the 9/11 terrorist attacks. And they succeeded in their mission, to a large degree: today we are embarked on a worldwide crusade which involves the invasion and occupation of a great deal of the Middle East. Breivik and his collaborators – if any – are simply taking it one step further, and in that they are more consistent than their neocon brethren, who prefer to have other people fight their wars of choice.

The neoconservative agenda [.pdf] is about one thing and one thing only: the desirability and necessity of a war to the death against the Muslim Enemy. Their relationship with Breivik is identical to the links between the “theoreticians” of yesterday’s New Left – Herbert Marcuse, Franz Fanon, etc. – and the activist rank-and-file, the college professors and the kids. Spencer is the theory: Breivik is the practice.

A screed posted on Horowitz’s website defends Spencer as being a mere “researcher” whose job it is to “monitor” the Muslim Threat. The pose of impartiality is supremely unconvincing. Spencer is a “researcher” in the same sense as Breivik: both start out with a foregone conclusion and then “research” assiduously to rationalize their preexisting agenda.

Breivik’s hate, expressed in terms of violence, is repulsive and therefore “fringe” – and yet Spencer and his ilk are the “respectable” proponents of the same basic ideology. Breivik was consigned to the margins, a member of a small sect – the “Knights Templar Europe” – which may very well have consisted of one member, himself. Spencer, on the other hand, has achieved a measure of quasi-respectability – or, at least, respectable enough to be included in a “training session” for military intelligence and law enforcement agencies.

Do we really want the man who inspired the worst mass murder in recent memory “training” our military and instructing our police in the intricacies of “Jihad in America”? That is just asking for trouble...

Breivik, Spencer, and the burgeoning anti-Muslim mini-industry that sprang up after 9/11 constitute an Axis of Hate, one that inevitably grew out of the “axis of evil” rhetoric employed by the Bush administration and their neoconservative Rasputins to justify the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. For over a decade, the West has been awash in a sea of propaganda targeting the Muslim world as a “swamp” which has to be “drained” for the good of humankind. Is it any wonder that some took seriously the comparison of Muslims to mosquitoes and embarked on an eradication campaign?...MORE...LINK-------------------------Mass-murdering Norwegian terrorist Anders Breivik: inspired by anti-Islamic ideology and writings of "mainstream" neocons

The online edition of the Murdoch tabloid The Sun is still using the 'Nazi' tag for Anders Behring Breivik. In today’s print edition 'Nazi' has been replaced by 'Devil'. Breivik had his own label for the leader of Nazi Germany: Hitler was 'The great Satan'. From his compendium, 2083: A European Declaration of Independence, under the section heading The great Satan, his cult and the Jews:

Whenever someone asks if I am a national socialist I am deeply offended. If there is one historical figure and past Germanic leader I hate it is Adolf Hitler. If I could travel in a time-machine to Berlin in 1933, I would be the first person to go – with the purpose of killing him. Why?... Hitler had the military capabilities necessary to liberate Jerusalem and the nearby provinces from Islamic occupation. He could have easily worked out an agreement with the UK and France to liberate the ancient Jewish Christian lands with the purpose of giving the Jews back their ancestral lands. The UK and France would perhaps even contribute to such a campaign in an effort to support European reconciliation. The deportation of the Jews from Germany wouldn’t be popular but eventually, the Jewish people would regard Hitler as a hero because he returned the Holy land to them… Were the majority of the German and European Jews disloyal? Yes, at least the so called liberal Jews, similar to the liberal Jews today that opposes nationalism/Zionism and supports multiculturalism. Jews that support multiculturalism today are as much of a threat to Israel and Zionism (Israeli nationalism) as they are to us. So let us fight together with Israel, with our Zionist brothers against all anti-Zionists, against all cultural Marxists/multiculturalists. Conservative Jews were loyal to Europe and should have been rewarded. Instead, he just targeted them all… So, are the current Jews in Europe and US disloyal? The multiculturalist (nation-wrecking) Jews ARE while the conservative Jews ARE NOT. Aprox. 75% of European/US Jews support multiculturalism while aprox. 50% of Israeli Jews does the same. This shows very clearly that we must embrace the remaining loyal Jews as brothers rather than repeating the mistake of the NSDAP. Whenever I discuss the Middle East issue with a national socialist he presents the anti-Israeli and pro-Palestine argument. He always seem unaware of the fact that his propaganda is hurting Israeli nationalists (who want to deport the Muslims from Israel) and that he is in fact helping the Israeli cultural Marxists/multiculturalists with his argumentation… Never target a Jew because he is a Jew, but rather because he is a category A or B traitor. And don’t forget that the bulk of the category A and B traitors are Christian Europeans. 90% of the category A and B traitors in my own country, Norway, are Nordic, Christian category A and B traitors.

It is customary for Israel loyalists and apologists to label progressive Jewish voices as ‘traitors’, and that at least is something they and Breivik can agree on: there are ‘Good Jews’ and ‘Bad Jews’, and bad Jews are ‘pro-Palestinian’. Right-wing and Zionist commentators yet refuse to acknowledge that the motives for this killing spree cannot be reduced to the influence of Nazism and violent Islamism. This political ideology should be feared for what it is: Fascism, with its (inevitably violent) struggle for racial purity, singular collective identity and defense of a superior culture 'under threat' from the morally degenerate Other - this ideology is alive and thriving in the west and Israel...MORE...LINK-------------------------

Chris Moore comments:

In his own strange way, Breivik himself is a multiculturalist, because he supports the culture of his Jewish Zionist “brothers” (and, presumably, their presence in the West as agents of Israel and agents of wars for Israel/ideological Zionism). So, in a lot of ways, he has plenty in common with both Judeo-Christian Zionists AND mainstream “liberal” Democrats, who are also staunch supporters of Jewish Zionism and its presence in the West, and appreciate Zionism’s utility as a spearhead for revolutionary Marxism-inspired wars of “progressivism” against Islamic civilization.

Indeed, he could even be said to have quite a lot in common with his allegedly ideologically multi-cultural victims, given his love for and embrace of certain factions of Jewry -- the factions that he would no doubt consider to be the authentic Jewry -- the Zionists. So he, too, has found a place in his heart for a subversive, ethno-religiously motivated, hostile minority.

Had Breivik emigrated to America, he unquestionably would have found a home with the neocons, and would have sympathized with neolib Zionist Democrats like Joe Lieberman (and Joe Biden, for that matter).

The reason that people like Breivik on both the Left and the Right are so confused and dangerous is because they are totally ignorant about what has made the West unique, liberating and successful -- namely its progress towards liberty by way of anti-centralism and anti-authoritarianism, which naturally flowed, in part, from Christianity’s contempt for and rebellion against corrupted, highly centralized, patriarchal-authoritarian Judaism, as well as authoritarian Roman imperialism.

In other words, liberty from corruption, tyranny and centralized authoritarianism is innate to Christianity, which, when combined with Greek thought and logic (rationalism) and Roman discipline laid the groundwork for a constantly evolving and morphing Western civilization willing to debate new data, new thought, new ideas -- all of which makes it highly conducive to evolution.

Multiculturalists simply don’t understand that highly centralized, authoritarian religions that don’t distinguish between religion and state like Judaism and Islam simply can’t be grafted upon such a civilization without attempting to overthrow it. Jewry has attempted to overthrow it via both Bolshevism (rooted in Marxism) with communism as its Trojan horse, and now via the more nakedly Jewish-supremacist Zionism; Muslims will eventually attempt to overthrow it via Islamism.

None of this means individual Jews or Muslims with a comprehension of an respect for Western civilization and the basis of its greatness don’t belong here, so long as they are willing to assimilate.

The problem that we have in the West today is that so many people, who’ve been indoctrinated into Marxism, Zionism, leftism, multicutlturalism, Islamism, neoconservatism, neoliberalism,…etc, etc, simply have no comprehension of what makes Western civilization tick and why it’s so great, other than these regressive, stunted, rigid ideological perspectives, which, when combined with political correctness unwilling to critically debate the demerits of other cultures and civilizations, and make a rational argument as to why their assimilation into Western civilization is essential if they seek to reside in the West, results in masses of warped ignoramus’ like Breivik and, sadly, many of his victims.

Breivik no doubt doesn't realize this, but fascists like himself are equally menacing and detrimental to Western civilization as are Marxists and Islamists, not due to his nationalism, but rather due to his Jewry-mirroring/emulating, authoritarian racial-nationalism, which is exactly the oppressive mire from which Christianity emerged.

Additionally, ideological Zionists like Breivik are at the forefront of advocacy of wars against Islamic civilization, which accomplishes nothing so much as driving millions of Muslim refugees into Europe, and right into the arms of cynical, opportunistic, leftist swindlers lying in wait who seek to utilize them for maximum political gain (and self-enriching, resource-hijacking material gain by way of the statist racket).

Senate Democrats have issued a new “savings” plan that would nominally pare the projected deficit by over $1 trillion simply by assuming that the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will eventually go away by virtue of those wars ending.

This has spawned a myriad of criticism, including a leaked Goldman Sachs memo warning that the nation faces a credit downgrade if it tries to use this sort of on-paper gimmick instead of actual cuts in spending.

And indeed, while politicians may be comfortable with the notion that the wars will end at some point in the next decade, it isn’t clear at all that this will be the case. Officials are already talking up continuing in Afghanistan long beyond 2014, while the war in Iraq seems set to be extended for “years to come.”

The memo noted that this war savings was only a problem “without a credible follow-on process,” which is to say an actual effort to end those wars. Given strong Democratic opposition to other efforts to end wars (including the ongoing war in Libya), it seems hard to believe officials are looking at doing anything credible about the seemingly endless conflicts...LINK

Monday, July 25, 2011

Given the fact that the establishment media got it spectacularly wrong by instantly jumping to the conclusion that Friday’s deadly attack in Norway was the work of Al-Qaeda Muslims, placing complete trust in the details emerging about gunman Anders Behring Breivik would be foolish, especially since there are innumerable inconsistencies and contradictions that need to be studied before a fuller picture of what motivated the bloodshed can be established.

The rush to blame Muslims for the carnage, hastily parroted by an onslaught of mainstream “terror experts,” was a startling insight into how the propaganda that fuels the war on terror is so unquestionably bounced around the echo chamber of the corporate media.

It’s also a reminder that the mainstream press instantly falls in line with whoever the establishment designates the enemy du jour to be at any given time. Now that Muslims have been so vehemently demonized as terrorists, it’s the turn of so called “right-wing extremists,” or anyone who disagrees with mass immigration, loss of sovereignty and globalist financial looting, to feel the heat.

The effort to smear European conservatives as unhinged radicals who harbor simmering urges for bloodlust is now in full swing, and it’s a demonization campaign firmly founded on the carefully crafted public portrayal of Anders Behring Breivik.

However, it’s quickly becoming apparent that just as many eyewitnesses reported two gunmen on the island where the rampage unfolded, there are two different personas behind Breivik himself.

Indeed, there are two different Facebook profiles for Breivik, one from before the massacre and one from after. The latter profile appears to have been embellished and deliberately altered to emphasize the notion that the gunman was motivated by his “Christian conservative” beliefs.

Compare the two profiles below (click to enlarge). The first one in Norwegian was deleted minutes after Breivik’s identity became public. The second profile in English appeared after the original was deleted, and became the de facto profile of the killer...

“Several things have been doctored up to alter the suspects political views. First a section titled “Philosophy” has been added to include “Christian,” and “Conservative.” The media has used this to great lengths,” notes the Council of Conservative Christians website.

In the second profile, Breivik’s interest in Winston Churchill and Max Manus, the leader of the Norwegian anti-Nazi resistance, have been deleted, presumably because they don’t fit with the psychological profile that Breivik was a right-wing neo-Nazi who had links with the English Defence League.

There was clearly manipulation surrounding Breivik’s Facebook page after the attack. As Madison Ruppert notes, “Someone was active on Breivik’s Facebook accepting friend requests after the massacre took place.” People were also tricked into registering on a fake Facebook page set up in support of the gunman’s actions.

Additionally, in a series of Internet postings, Breivik clearly characterizes himself not as a populist Christian conservative, as the media has attempted to push, but as a Bill Kristol style neo-con, an enthusiastic supporter of Israel, attacking racists and accusing others of being “anti-gay”.

“None of the comments are extreme or hint at a desire to commit violence,” notes the CCC website, adding that Breivik was a supporter of the website which was run by Hans Rustad, a former Jewish left-winger turned neo-conservative.

It seems as if there are two Breivik’s, the original, a socially liberal, pro-Israel neo-con, and the second post-massacre profile of a Christian conservative, white supremacist. The second profile has clearly been embellished to push the notion that Breivik’s rampage was driven by his Christian conservative beliefs, which is convenient given the fact that governments recently introduced the meme that white, Christian conservatives were the leading terror threat...MORE...LINK

It had to happen: the rise of a “counter-jihadist” terrorist outfit that is the mirror image of al-Qaeda. That it first arose in Norway, rather than, say, in the US, is just a coincidence, although I’m sure Anders Behring Breivik, the perpetrator of the Norwegian mass murder in Utoya, has his American collaborators, as he claimed in his manifesto, “2083: A Declaration of European Independence,” [.pdf] and an accompanying video. Indeed, a good many of the sources he cites in “2083″ – which is basically a compendium of previously published works by others – are American. Material from David Horowitz’s website, Frontpagemag.com, figures prominently, along with articles taken verbatim from the Horowitz-affiliated “Jihad Watch,” run by professional hater and make-believe “scholar” Robert Spencer.

Breivik’s “book” is a mishmash, half diary of his careful preparations for the attack thrown together with anti-Muslim materials and boilerplate conservative rhetoric about the importance of faith, family, and community – Breivik lifts an entire section of a screed on “Cultural Conservatism” by the late Paul Weyrich – totaling well over a thousand pages. Thankfully, we don’t have to plough through this disjointed “compendium,” as he calls it – which shows signs of being hastily thrown together in preparation for his international debut as the Norwegian Timothy McVeigh, just like his Facebook page and his Twitter account. Breivik created a much more coherent video version which gives us a lot more clues about why he murdered 90-plus (at last count) of his fellow Norwegians in the name of fighting Islam...

The second part of the video details the threat posed by an inherently aggressive and implacable Islam, the long history of Islamic imperialism, and the submission of the subject peoples to “dhimmitude.” This section relies heavily on the writings of the professional Islamophobes such as Robert Spencer, Bat Ye’or, Andrew G. Bostom, Bernard Lewis, etc., that reads like the table of contents for a routine edition of Horowitz’s online magazine. It is neoconservatism, of the old cold war variety, with the only difference being that International Islam has taken the place of International Communism as our unsleeping foe...

For years, neoconservatives have been telling us the decadent West is no match for the holy warriors of Islam, and what is needed is a revival of the Crusader spirit so that we can defeat our Eternal Enemy once and for all. We in the West must be put on a permanent war footing, they tell us, in order to put “an end to evil,” as two of them put it in a book title. Like the neocons, Breivik and the EDL are staunch supporters of Israel: the Israeli flag flies at EDL rallies, and the Jewish state comes in for undiluted praise in the Knights Templar manifesto.

Before Breivik was identified as the culprit, neocon columnist Jennifer Rubin rushed into print with an assessment by two of her fellow neocon “experts” – Gary Schmitt and Thomas Joscelyn – that this was the work of al-Qaeda, and concluded:

“This is a sobering reminder for those who think it’s too expensive to wage a war against jihadists…. Some irresponsible lawmakers on both sides of the aisle…would have us believe that enormous defense cuts would not affect our national security. Obama would have us believe that al-Qaeda is almost caput and that we can wrap up things in Afghanistan. All of these are rationalizations for doing something very rash, namely curbing our ability to defend the United States and our allies in a very dangerous world.”

Well, it is a sobering reminder, but not in the way Rubin intended: it’s a reminder that ideas have consequences. It’s not surprising someone took neoconservative propaganda seriously enough to go the terrorist route: Breivik is merely carrying out the program advocated by the David Horowitz’s, the Robert Spencers, the Pam Gellers of this sad and sorry world. The one difference is that Breivik and his fellow Knights are taking direct action, without bothering to employ the agency of government...MORE...LINK

The man accused of the killing spree in Norway was deeply influenced by a small group of American bloggers and writers who have warned for years about the threat from Islam, lacing his 1,500-page manifesto with quotations from them, as well as copying multiple passages from the tract of the Unabomber.

In the document he posted online, Anders Behring Breivik, who is accused of bombing government buildings and killing scores of young people at a Labor Party camp, showed that he had closely followed the acrimonious American debate over Islam.

His manifesto, which denounced Norwegian politicians as failing to defend the country from Islamic influence, quoted Robert Spencer, who operates the Jihad Watch Web site, 64 times, and cited other Western writers who shared his view that Muslim immigrants pose a grave danger to Western culture...

The revelations about Mr. Breivik’s American influences exploded on the blogs over the weekend, putting Mr. Spencer and other self-described “counterjihad” activists on the defensive, as their critics suggested that their portrayal of Islam as a threat to the West indirectly fostered the crimes in Norway.

Mr. Spencer wrote on his Web site, jihadwatch.org, that “the blame game” had begun, “as if killing a lot of children aids the defense against the global jihad and Islamic supremacism, or has anything remotely to do with anything we have ever advocated.” He did not mention Mr. Breivik’s voluminous quotations from his writings...

Mr. Breivik frequently cited another blog, Atlas Shrugs, and recommended the Gates of Vienna among Web sites. Pamela Geller, an outspoken critic of Islam who runs Atlas Shrugs, wrote on her blog Sunday that any assertion that she or other antijihad writers bore any responsibility for Mr. Breivik’s actions was “ridiculous.”

“If anyone incited him to violence, it was Islamic supremacists,” she wrote...MORE...LINK -------------------------

Chris Moore comments:

In addition to the Israel-first neocon faction of the Right, I will be interested to see how the Israel-first, Jewish Zionist-owned, pro-war-against-Islam, liberal interventionist Democrat Party reacts to this fellow Zionist-loving terrorist. No doubt they'll spin madly to blame it all on generic "conservatives" -- even though Ron Paul non-interventionist conservatives are the only ones without blood on their hands in this entire, sordid mess.

It's time to stop thinking about Democrats and neocon Republicans as oppositional forces, and stop thinking about neocon Republicans as conservative. Instead, all these warmongers should be thought of as two wings of the same terrorist-inspiring, Zionist-partisan, liberal fascist bird.

Only Ron Paul libertarian-conservatives are untainted by this entire sordid, murderous mess.

Details on the culprit behind yesterday's massacre in Norway, which saw car bombings in Oslo and a mass shooting attack on the island of Utoya that caused the deaths of at least 91 people, have begun to emerge. While it is still too early for a complete portrait of the killer, Anders Behring Breivik, there are enough details to begin to piece together what's behind the attack.

Although initial media reports, spurred on by the tweets of former State Department adviser on violent extremism Will McCants, linked the attacks to Islamist extremists, it was in fact an anti-Muslim zealot who committed the murders. An examination of Breivik's views, and his support for far-right European political movements, makes it clear that only by interrogating the nexus of Islamophobia and right-wing Zionism can one understand the political beliefs behind the terrorist attack.

Breivik is apparently an avid fan of U.S.-based anti-Muslim activists such as Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer and Daniel Pipes, and has repeatedly professed his ardent support for Israel. Breivik's political ideology is illuminated by looking at comments he posted to the right-wing site document.no, which author and journalist Doug Sanders put up.

Here's a sampling of some of Breivik's comments:

And then we have the relationship between conservative Muslims and so-called "moderate Muslims".There is moderate Nazis, too, that does not support fumigation of rooms and Jews. But they're still Nazis and will only sit and watch as the conservatives Nazis strike (if it ever happens). If we accept the moderate Nazis as long as they distance themselves from the fumigation of rooms and Jews?Now it unfortunately already cut himself with Marxists who have already inﬁltrated-culture, media and educational organizations. These individuals will be tolerated and will even work asprofessors and lecturers at colleges / universities and are thus able to spread their propaganda.For me it is very hypocritical to treat Muslims, Nazis and Marxists differ. They are all supporters of hate-ideologies...(page 2-3)What is globalization and modernity to do with mass Muslim immigration?...

Daniel Pipes: Leftism and Islam. Muslims, the warriors Marxists Have Been praying for.link to www.youtube.comThe following summarizes the agenda of many kulturmarxister with Islam, it explains also why those on death and life protecting them. It explains so well why we, the cultural conservatives,are against Islamization and the implementation of these agendas... (page 27)We must therefore make sure to inﬂuence other cultural conservatives to come to our anti-rasistiske/pro-homser/pro-Israel line. When they reach this line, one can take it to the next level...(page 41)

...Anti-Muslim activists and right-wing Zionists share a political narrative that the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is a "clash of civilizations," one in which Judeo-Christian culture is under attack by Islam. Israel, in this narrative, is the West's bulwark against the threat that Islam is posing to Europe and the United States. The nexus of Islamophobia and right-wing Zionism was clearly on display during last summer's "Ground Zero mosque" hysteria, which culminated in a rally where Geller and Wilders addressed a crowd that included members of the EDL waving Israeli flags.

This comment by Breivik is one example of the twisted way in which Islamophobia and a militant pro-Israel ideology fit together:

Cultural conservatives disagree when they believe the conﬂict is based on Islamic imperialism,that Islam is a political ideology and not a race.Cultural conservatives believe Israel has a right to protect themselves against the Jihad.Kulturmarxistene refuses to recognize the fact that Islam's political doctrine is relevant and essential. They can never admit to or support this because they believe that this is primarily about a race war - that Israel hates Arabs (breed).As long as you can not agree on the fundamental perceptions of reality are too naive to expect that one to come to any conclusion.Before one at all can begin to discuss this conﬂict must ﬁrst agree on the fundamental truths of Islam's political doctrine.Most people here have great insight in key Muslim concepts that al-taqiiya (political deceit), naskh (Quranic abrogation) and Jihad. The problem is that kulturmarxister refuses to recognizet hese concepts.They can not recognize these key Muslim concepts. For if they do so erodes the primary argument that Israel is a "racist state" and that this is a race war (Israelis vs. Arabs) and not defense against Jihad (Kafr vs. Ummah)

Breivik's admiration for the likes of Daniel Pipes is also telling, and should serve as a warning that, while it would be extremely unfair and wrong to link Pipes in any way to the massacre in Norway, Breivik's views are not so far off from some establishment neoconservative voices in the U.S. For instance, both Pipes and Breivik share a concern with Muslim demographics in Europe. In 1990, Pipes wrote in the National Review that "Western European societies are unprepared for the massive immigration of brown-skinned peoples cooking strange foods and maintaining different standards of hygiene...All immigrants bring exotic customs and attitudes, but Muslim customs are more troublesome than most."

Pipes was appointed by the Bush administration to the U.S. Institute of Peace, and sits on the same board than none other than the Obama administration's point man on the Middle East, Dennis Ross.

Pipes' and Breivik's concern about Muslim and Arab demographics also recall the remarks of Harvard Fellow Martin Kramer, who infamously told the Herzliya Conference in Israel last year that the West should "stop providing pro-natal subsidies for Palestinians with refugee status...Israel's present sanctions on Gaza have a political aim, undermine the Hamas regime, but they also break Gaza's runaway population growth and there is some evidence that they have."

Adding to the Israel/Palestine angle here is the fact that the day before the attack on the island of Utoya, a Palestine solidarity event was held there...MORE...LINK

Yet the principled resistance of the Tea Party Caucus in the House has put their leader right across the table from Barack Obama to negotiate the final terms of armistice in the debt-ceiling battle of 2011.

Today is July 22. On this day, it was said, either Congress will have voted to raise the debt ceiling, or the markets will have panicked and America will be on the road to default on Aug. 2.

House leaders John Boehner and Eric Cantor are, as of this writing, sitting with Obama negotiating terms. And yesterday, the stock market surged in anticipation they were close to an agreement. If Boehner and Cantor are dealing from strength, it is thanks to the Tea Party’s rejection of previous deals.

The caucus held Boehner’s feet to the fire, and Boehner is the stronger for it.And so, today, it is Democrats who are in rebellion. For Obama has reportedly signed on to specific and real reductions, $3 trillion worth, that include cuts in future costs of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

America’s hirsute welfare state may be about to get a haircut.

“Who dares, wins,” is the motto of the Special Air Service, the Brits’ answer to America’s Navy SEALs. While no final deal has been cut, House Republicans have made significant gains.

They passed “Cut, Cap and Balance,” a Tea Party plan to cut federal spending to 20 percent of gross domestic product, cap federal programs and secure a vote on a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution.

Second, Obama has offered to put budget cuts upfront to get a debt-ceiling increase. This would be insurance against what happened to Ronald Reagan, where tax hikes agreed to were enacted and the budget cuts lost somewhere along the trail.

Third, the president has apparently agreed to tax reform, whereby a host of deductions, exemptions and tax credits would be discarded from the code by the GOP in return for tax rate reductions for businesses and individuals.

Reagan was governing during the last of a dying era in America, when there was still a whiff of authentic patriotism instead of this Globalist-Zionist neoconservatism and Trotskyite internationalist left-liberalism that has overtaken each party in America.

Buchanan: “For Obama has reportedly signed on to specific and real reductions, $3 trillion worth, that include cuts in future costs of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid…Obama’s proposal appears to contain a non-performance clause, however. If no deal on tax reform is reached, at the end of 2012, the Bush tax cuts will not be extended for high-end earners. That would be a defeat for the Tea Party, the GOP and the country.”

I agree that the Social Security and government medical programs need reform, but how many high-end earners are banksters and free trade corporatists who have been systematically off shoring American jobs for decades to increase their profit margins and feather their own nests? How many are part of the army of wealthy white collar accountants and lawyers that enabled this plunder of American manufacturing and industry?

Additionally, how many are part of the 171,689 federal government workers making over $150k per year?

Not going after the wealthy makes sense only when they’re patriotic America-firsters investing in America; it doesn’t make sense when they’re parasites and plunderers pursuing a Globalist agenda. Why reward these, and put the screws to those on fixed income Social Security who would spend their money in America and not hoard it away in some offshore account, or who earn their luxurious living at the taxpayer trough?

Although I don’t think any of the so-called “serious” politicians will allow the federal government to default on its debts at this juncture, our current fiscal policy is unsustainable. At some point, the government will have to stick it to one or more of the major interest groups in play: bondholders, seniors and others who depend on entitlements, and taxpayers. I believe bondholders will bear the brunt of the government’s nearly inevitable fiscal collapse, and that is exactly as it should be.

The politics of the situation are relatively simple. More senior citizens vote than any other demographic, and with Baby Boomers on the cusp of retirement, their numbers will swell, so large cuts to Social Security and Medicare will remain next to impossible. Tax rates will rise, but American taxpayers (and the American economy) simply will not stand for the level of taxation necessary to maintain our foreign empire, pay entitlements, and service the debt.

Something must give, and it will be the debt, specifically the 47% of our public debt held by foreigners and foreign governments. These groups have little direct impact on American politics, and although it will create international outrage, our domestic politics don’t allow any other way out.

And bondholders–both foreign and domestic–should lose out. They act as the government’s enabler, ready to supply the junkie with his next hit whenever his cash runs low. This is an institution that launches wars on whims and imprisons more of its own citizens than any other country on Earth. Anyone who voluntarily gives his own money to it either lacks even a passing familiarity with its stunning immorality and incompetence or is so blinded by status quo bias that he can’t see the very clear writing on the wall. Buying debt carries risks, and when you give your money to the governmental equivalent of a magic bean salesman, you have no right to complain when you don’t get it back...MORE...LINK

Wall Street has nothing on this administration. At least $35 billion a year in pay and bonuses — more than $200,000 a year — is going to the 10% of federal workers.

The number of federal workers receiving $150,000 — $3,000 a week — to push their pencils has doubled under Barack Obama as the president pays back all those public employee unions.

They cannot be fired and they enjoy the best fringe benefits in the world.

They are our Overlords.

Enough.

Civil servants should not be unionized. Republicans should ban all federal unions — and make anyone GS 12 or above a will-and-pleasure employee.

That 171,689 of them now make $150,000 a year — or more — $200,000 a year when those Cadillac fringe benefits are included — is sickening.

That is $16 billion in pay and fringes.

And Barack Obama dares to demonize Wall Street compensation?

It is not all his fault. In 2005, we overpaid “only” 12,399 of them.

If they can do better in the private sector, then let them go.

From Glenn Reynolds: CHANGE:

“Retiring at 62 became law in France on Wednesday, a victory for President Nicolas Sarkozy’s conservative government and a defeat for the unions that waged massive strikes and street protests to try to stop the austerity measure.”

But while we scoff at France, let us remember that federal employees can retire at 56. It will take another 17 years for that minimum to rise — be still my heart — to 57.

So who is the fool this time, fool?

Cuts in federal personnel must be made. And they must be deep. And they must be painful.

Wednesday, July 20, 2011

The erosion of the American republic has been a long historical process that has reached its final stages. The erosion didn't begin with President Barack Obama, or George W. Bush, or Bill Clinton. We have to trace the growth of America's totalitarian terrorist state back to the establishment of America's private central bank in 1913.

The looting of America by the country's leading politicians, bankers, and corporations has been a long and quiet affair, with the Federal Reserve Bank playing the most critical role. The Fed's secret financial operations at home and abroad lie at the heart of the high treason against the American people and the U.S. constitution that has gone on for generations.

America is not suffering today because of government mismanagement and incompetence. America is suffering because acts of high treason and epic fraud are being committed by the country's highest political leaders who are part of a grand and gigantic conspiracy against freedom and the principles that America was founded on. Nowhere was this fact more clear than in New York City on September 11, 2001 when traitors inside America's shadow establishment conspired with Zionist traitors in Israel to bring the two towers down and take America to war.

Only a fool would deny the reality that America and other Western countries have been taken hostage by a cabal of predatory elitists who believe that the all-powerful State is beyond moral and legal boundaries, that government lying is normal and necessary, and that government officials can commit crimes and acts of Satanic evil because they are enlightened beings who are doing what must be done to save human civilization from global collapse.

Members of the secret conspiracy against freedom and truth are causing the controlled collapse of the American economy in Machiavellian fashion in order to lessen America's consumption of natural resources and consumer products. A lot of intellectuals believe this is a noble and worthy goal, not realizing that a dead economy will cause mass suffering and civil unrest on a level never before seen in human history.

The American Dream website gives us a hint of what America will go through in this decade in the article, '20 Signs That The Fabric Of American Society Is Coming Apart At The Seams'...MORE...LINK

There is wild disagreement about what is causing it, but what most people can agree on is that there is something fundamentally wrong with America. The fabric of American society just does not seem to be as strong as it used to. In fact, many would argue that society is coming apart at the seams. Corruption and decay seem to be everywhere. I spend a lot of time in my other articles blaming a lot of this corruption and decay on politicians, bureaucrats and business leaders, but the reality is that they are only part of the story. The truth is that those who are leading us are a reflection of what we have become as a nation. If you got rid of all of our corrupt leaders that would not suddenly “fix” this country. Millions of ordinary Americans have become deeply corrupt as well. The kinds of things that you are about to read about below were very rare in past generations. Society is falling apart all around us and we haven’t even seen the complete collapse of the U.S. economy yet.

A lot of people like to blame the increasingly bizarre behavior of the American people on the economy, but the reality is that things are not nearly as bad as they are eventually going to be. Yes, the U.S. “Misery Index” recently hit a 28 year high. Tens of millions of American families are deeply suffering. Unemployment is rampant and unprecedented numbers of Americans have been getting kicked out of their homes.

But that is nothing compared to what is coming.

So what is America going to look like when true economic suffering comes along?

That is something to think about.

A lot of the items in the list below may seem easy to dismiss as “isolated incidents”. But when you start examining patterns of behavior over an extended period of time, certain trends begin to emerge. America is become a very cruel place. The love of most people seems to be growing cold. What some people are willing to do for a little bit of money or just because someone has “pissed them off” is absolutely stunning. The America of today is fundamentally different from the America of past generations.

We have changed, and not for the better.

The following are 20 signs that the fabric of American society is coming apart at the seams...MORE...LINK

Most American voters oppose raising the national debt limit, and think talk of missed Social Security checks is just a scare tactic. Voters are optimistic that a debt deal will be made soon, and if it isn’t they will blame both Republicans and Democrats.

These are just some of the findings from a Fox News poll released Wednesday.

Voters were asked to imagine being a lawmaker in Congress who had to cast an up-or-down vote on raising the debt ceiling. The poll found 35 percent would vote in favor of increasing the limit, while 60 percent would vote against it.

Most Tea Partiers (81 percent), Republicans (76 percent) and independents (63 percent) would vote against raising the limit. Views among Democrats are more evenly divided: 50 percent would raise it and 44 percent wouldn’t...MORE...LINK

Can you smell it? There is blood in the water. Global financial markets are in turmoil. Banking stocks are getting slaughtered right now. European bond yields are absolutely soaring. Major corporations are announcing huge layoffs. The entire global financial system appears to be racing toward another major crisis. So could we potentially see a repeat of 2008? Sadly, when the next big financial crisis happens it might be worse than 2008. Back in the middle of 2008, the U.S. national debt was less than 10 trillion dollars. Today it is over 14 trillion dollars. Back in 2008, none of the countries in the EU were on the verge of financial collapse. Today, several of them are. This time if the global financial system starts falling apart the big governments around the world are not going to be able to do nearly as much to support it. That is why what is happening right now is so alarming. As signs of weakness spread, the short sellers and the speculators are starting to circle. They can smell the money.

Back in 2008, bank stocks led the decline. Today, that appears to be happening again. The "too big to fail" banks are getting absolutely pummeled right now. Most people don't have much sympathy for the banksters, but if we do see a repeat of 2008 they are going to be cutting off credit and begging for massive bailouts once again, and that would not be good news for the economy.

In Europe, the EU sovereign debt crisis just seems to get worse by the day. Bond yields for the PIIGS are going haywire. The higher the yields go, the worse the crisis is going to get.

Meanwhile, as I have written about previously, a bad mood has descended on world financial markets. Pessimism is everywhere and fear is spreading. The short sellers and the speculators are eager to jump on any sign of weakness. Investors all over the globe are extremely nervous right now...

These are not normal financial times. The worldwide debt bubble is starting to burst and nobody is quite sure what is going to happen next. Certainly we are going to continue to see financial authorities all over the world do their best to keep the system going. But as we saw in 2008, things can spiral out of control very quickly.

Just remember, back at the beginning of 2008 very few people would have ever imagined that the biggest financial institutions in America would be begging for hundreds of billions of dollars in bailouts by the end of that year.

When confidence disappears, the game can change very quickly. To the vast majority of economists it would have been unimaginable that the yield on 2 year Greek bonds would be over 35 percent in mid-2011.

But here we are.

The entire global financial system is a house of cards built on a foundation of sand. It is more vulnerable today than it has been at any other time since World War II. When a couple of major dominoes fall, it is likely to set off a massive chain reaction.

The global financial system of today was not designed with safety and security in mind. It was designed for greedy people to be able to make as much money as possible as quickly as possible. The banksters don't care about the greater good of mankind. What they care about is making huge piles of cash.

There is way too much risk, way too much debt and way too much leverage in the global financial marketplace. You would have thought that 2008 should have been a major wake up call for financial authorities around the world, but very few significant changes have been made since that time.

The financial news is just going to keep getting worse. This financial system is simply unsustainable. It is fundamentally unsound. The reality is that financial bubbles cannot keep expanding forever. Eventually they must burst.

Over the next few weeks, keep a close eye on banking stocks and keep a close eye on European bond yields...MORE...LINK

In a recent interview with The National Memo, Clinton said he would raise the $14.3 trillion debt ceiling on his own if Congress fails to act, and "force the courts to stop me" rather than face a government default.

"I think the Constitution is clear and I think this idea that the Congress gets to vote twice on whether to pay for (expenditures) it has appropriated is crazy," Clinton said.

Clinton referred to the 14th amendment, a post-Civil War measure that reads in part: "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned."

Obama and aides, however, have questioned whether he has the right to lift the debt ceiling on his own...MORE...LINK-------------------------Clinton gets nasty: Like heroin addicts going through withdrawal, frustrated, spending addicted left-liberals begin issuing Stalinist threats over conservative and libertarian refusal to enable their nation-destroying habits any longer

The Minnesota congresswoman has surged to the forefront of the Republican primary race in recent weeks, attracting criticism for her strident anti-gay views and former membership of a controversial evangelical church.

But her new prominence has now prompted former advisers to express doubt that her migraines would allow her to sit in the Oval Office, or even last a full campaign.

"As president, when she's in crisis management mode, is she going to have the physical ability to withstand the most difficult challenges facing America?" a former employee told the Daily Caller website. "It's a careful choice of words I used: 'incapacitated'."

Mrs Bachmann, 55, suffers attacks on average once a week and can be put out of action for days at time, the advisers said. Migraines are said to have landed the candidate in hospital on at least three occasions and require routine heavy medication and regular contact with her doctors.

"When she gets them, frankly, she can't function at all. It's not like a little thing with a couple Advils. It's bad," said one adviser...

The report on her illness came as further ammunition emerged to arm Mrs Bachmann's critics both inside and outside the Republican Party, who see her as too extreme to be a mainstream candidate and as someone guaranteed to lose to President Barack Obama in 2012.

A recording is widely circulating on the internet of a prayer she is said to have delivered in 2006 at a ministry run by Bradlee Dean, a controversial preacher who has called for gay people to be locked up.

She predicted "we are in the last days" and declared "the harvest is at hand", an apparent allusion to the belief that God will take saved Christians from the Earth and leave non-believers behind to face never-ending torment.

"The day is at hand, Lord, when your return will come nigh. Nothing is more important than bringing sheep into the fold, than bringing life into the new kingdom," she prayed.

Such views are not unusual in the elements of the evangelical Christian community, said Marie Diamond of Think Progress, a liberal website. "But it's still disconcerting that someone campaigning to lead America into the future believes that its days are numbered and millions of its citizens are doomed," she said.

Mrs Bachmann has toned down her religious rhetoric since running for president, and is focusing her campaign on opposing the president on health care and government spending.

She has left her long time church, the Salem Evangelical Lutheran Church in Stillwater, which belongs to the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, an arch conservative denomination that maintains that the Pope is the anti-Christ...MORE...LINK --------------------------

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak against HR 2560, the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act. This bill only serves to sanction the status quo by putting forth a $1 trillion budget deficit and authorizing a $2.4 trillion increase in the debt limit.

When I say this bill sanctions the status quo, I mean it quite literally.

First, it purports to eventually balance the budget without cutting military spending, Social Security, or Medicare. This is impossible. These three budget items already cost nearly $1 trillion apiece annually. This means we can cut every other area of federal spending to zero and still have a $3 trillion budget. Since annual federal tax revenues almost certainly will not exceed $2.5 trillion for several years, this Act cannot balance the budget under any plausible scenario.

Second, it further entrenches the ludicrous beltway concept of discretionary vs. nondiscretionary spending. America faces a fiscal crisis, and we must seize the opportunity once and for all to slay Washington's sacred cows-- including defense contractors and entitlements. All spending must be deemed discretionary and reexamined by Congress each year. To allow otherwise is pure cowardice.

Third, the Act applies the nonsensical narrative about a "Global War on Terror" to justify exceptions to its spending caps. Since this war is undeclared, has no definite enemies, no clear objectives, and no metric to determine victory, it is by definition endless. Congress will never balance the budget until we reject the concept of endless wars.

Finally, and most egregiously, this Act ignores the real issue: total spending by government...

We need to balance the budget, but a balanced budget amendment by itself will not do the trick. A $4 trillion balanced budget is most certainly worse than a $2 trillion unbalanced budget. Again, we should focus on the total size of the budget more than outlays vs. revenues.

What we have been asked to do here is support a budget that only cuts relative to the President's proposed budget. It still maintains a $1 trillion budget deficit for FY 2012, and spends even more money over the next 10 years than the Paul Ryan budget which already passed the House.

By capping spending at a certain constant percentage of GDP, it allows for federal spending to continue to grow. Tying spending to GDP creates an incentive to manipulate the GDP figure, especially since the bill delegates the calculation of this figure to the Office of Management and Budget, an agency which is responsible to the President and not to Congress. In the worst case, it would even reward further inflation of the money supply, as increases in nominal GDP through pure inflation would allow for larger federal budgets.

Finally, this bill authorizes a $2.4 trillion rise in the debt limit. I have never voted for a debt ceiling increase and I never will. Increasing the debt ceiling is an endorsement of business as usual in Washington. It delays the inevitable, the day that one day will come when we cannot continue to run up enormous deficits and will be forced to pay our bills.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while I sympathize with the aims of this bill's sponsors, I must vote against HR 2560. It is my hope, however, that the looming debt ceiling deadline and the discussion surrounding the budget will further motivate us to consider legislation in the near future that will make meaningful cuts and long-lasting reforms...MORE...LINK

Despite being swept into the office of Speaker of the House atop a wave of newly elected Republican Congressmen, John Boehner (R-Ohio) may be sensing that, more often than not, this wave is crashing in on him and threatening to drown his little empire.

Quite a different feeling from the day when 87 Republicans worn sworn in as Congressmen for the first time in 2011 and John Boehner rejoiced to welcome this freshman class of colleagues. On that heady day Boehner rightly reckoned that he would soon be handed the Speaker’s gavel and, with it, control of the House of Representatives and of the policy agenda of the Congress specifically and the federal government generally.

The debt “crisis” has Speaker Boehner wondering if the troops have received the marching orders, however. John Boehner is an old-school, wheeler dealer who knows just how much grease to put on the skids. These Tea Party-backed recruits, however, are a dogmatic corps who are committed to sticking to their guns at all costs. Not exactly the sort of esprit de corps Boehner advocates.

As one article summed up the situation: “Mr. Boehner is struggling like few recent Speakers before him to reconcile his own deal-making Republicanism with the no-compromise determination of his Class of 2010. His own leadership may be at stake.”

Similar dispatches are being published throughout Tea Party nation.

“A go-along, get-along Republican” who “doesn’t have stomach for a fight.” Those were the words used by Tea Party Nation founder Judson Phillips to describe Speaker of the House John Boehner after Boehner cut a deal with Democrats earlier in the year to keep the federal government funded.

That demonstration of Boehner’s pliability on principle so outraged much of the Tea Party coalition that reports from the various Tea Party outposts suggest that the movement will back a challenger to Boehner in the 2012 elections...

When word percolated up that Speaker Boehner was negotiating with the White House to present a package to reduce spending that included a $1 trillion tax increase, the freshmen stood firm and the Speaker had to cease the parley and trot back reluctantly to his own (unfamiliar) battle line.

A former Republican colleague of Boehner's explained the relationship thus: “The freshmen know why they were sent [to Congress] and they know full well they were not sent there to raise taxes. They were sent there to cut spending and restrain the growth of government.”

Time is running out for Speaker Boehner to rally the troops and assemble the 218-member force necessary to pass a ceiling-raising bill through the House of Representatives. Under other circumstances, the Speaker may have been able to count on a number of Democrats siding with him in any measure that increases the ability of the federal government to economically enslave the middle class, but given that any Republican-sponsored bill is likely to include some cuts in the size of the government, their alliance is doubtful...MORE...LINK

...The spending champ got two facts wrong in a single sentence. Here’s what he said: “Everybody acknowledged that we have to get this done before the hard deadline of August 2nd, to make sure America does not default for the first time on its obligations.”

The last part of that statement is just flat-out wrong. It is not true that the United States has never defaulted on its debt. Actually, as anyone familiar with our financial history knows, the government has officially defaulted on its obligations at least twice. And it continues to do so today.

During the Civil War, the Union issued a flood of paper money to help pay its bills. The Treasury promised to convert these “greenbacks,” as the currency was called, into gold at war’s end. However (surprise, surprise), the government reneged on this promise. In fact, it passed something called the Legal Tender Act, requiring people to accept greenbacks at face value. It revoked a promise that holders could exchange them for gold-backed Treasury bonds.

The scheme worked so well that Franklin Roosevelt did even more 70 years later. FDR made the ownership of gold illegal in the U.S. in 1933. Citizens were ordered to surrender any gold coins they owned. At the same time, the promise on our currency that it was “in gold coin payable to the bearer on demand” was repudiated. Gold certificates could be exchanged solely for more paper. It was one of the biggest thefts from its citizens our government ever perpetrated ... until now.

Despite the worries of some of our more alarmed contemporaries, gold confiscation is unlikely to happen again in this country. For one reason, the government doesn’t need to seize our gold to create a mountain of new money. Since there is not a single gram of gold backing any of our currency, there is simply no limit on the amount of fiat currency the Federal Reserve can create.

The process isn’t new. Famed British economist (and big-government enthusiast) John Maynard Keynes understood it very well when he wrote, “By a continuing process of inflation, government can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens.”

If the government promises you a dollar, it should pay you a dollar, right? But under the tax-and-tax, spend-and-spend policies of the past 50 years, the “dollar” Uncle Sam pays you isn’t worth 100 cents. Its purchasing power has fallen so far since FDR’s day that it takes 10 or 20 “dollars” to purchase what a dollar used to buy.

This steady and deliberate inflation of our currency is the most deceptive, most deadly and most despicable form of devaluation.

So don’t tell me the U.S. has never and will never default on our debt, Mr. President. It’s simply not true...

Senator Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) has stated emphatically: “If Congress refuses to raise the debt ceiling, the federal government will still have far more than enough money to fully service our debt.” So he’s proposed a new law that would require the Treasury to make interest payments on our debt its first priority.

Voilà! With one simple piece of legislation, the problem is solved. So let us hear no more about the United States not paying its debts.

As I said above, the single most important decision Congress will make this year is whether to raise the debt ceiling. I hope you will insist that your Congressman toes the line here. If the House won’t give in, we will win this battle. And you’d better believe all the big-spenders in Washington know this.

Donald Trump, master of the deal, is right. The Republicans are stupid, not only as politicians but also as political psychologists. He criticized Paul Ryan for bringing up the subject of Medicare reform that the Democrats could use to turn the elderly against the Republicans. Their video of grandma being shoved over the cliff by Republicans is a stark indication of how the Dems will fight to win four more years for Obama. As the discussions over increasing the debt limit go on, the Democrats are portraying themselves as the more flexible party in the negotiations. They are willing to cut “cherished programs” such as Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, provided Republicans agree to some increases in revenue. They want the Republicans to agree to raise taxes and cut spending on programs that the elderly hold sacred. A perfect recipe for Republican defeat in November 2012. Thursday’s meeting was supposed to focus on spending cuts in the two health care programs and on new revenue. And only stupid Republicans would attend such a meeting.

In other words, Obama is doing everything in his power to convince Republicans that political suicide is in their best interest. He knows that if he is forced to cut even a dime from these “cherished programs,” he will be able to blame the Republicans for that dastardly deed.

Why are cuts in Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security even on the table? Who put them there? Why not cut government spending elsewhere: by abolishing the Department of Education, the Environmental Protection Agency, OSHA, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, selling off some of the millions of acres of land the Fed owns in the West?

From the very beginning, by focusing on cutting Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, the Republicans have trapped themselves into a no-win situation. Why haven’t they offered a list of real cuts in federal spending? Who told them that cutting programs that the elderly are dependent on is the way to win votes in 2012?...MORE...LINK

As most Americans stand around waiting for the U.S. economy to return to "normal", there is a never ending parade of jobs, businesses and wealth heading out of the United States. The jobs and businesses that are leaving are gone for good and will not be coming back. This is causing unemployment to soar and government debt to skyrocket but our politicians are doing nothing about it. Instead, politicians from both parties keep insisting that they will solve all of our problems if we will just give them our votes. Meanwhile, American families continue to fill up their shopping carts with cheap plastic crap made on the other side of the world. Globalism is slowly destroying the greatest economic machine that the world has ever seen and most Americans don't even realize it. Today, the U.S. government has surrendered massive amounts of economic sovereignty to global organizations such as the WTO, the IMF and the World Bank. The United States has also entered into a whole host of very damaging "free trade agreements" such as NAFTA that are costing our economy huge numbers of jobs. Our politicians always promised us that globalism would bring us to a new level of prosperity, but instead that "giant sucking sound" that you hear is the sound of the U.S. economy being hollowed out.

Our politicians and the talking heads in the mainstream media always seem to be puzzled as to why there seems to be such a lack of jobs in this country.

But it really is no great mystery.

Jeffrey Pfeffer recently wrote an article for Fortune in which he stated the following....

The U.S. seems to be shocked that its economy isn't creating many jobs, and each monthly report on the unemployment rate and the number of new jobs somehow stimulates more handwringing. I'm not an economist, labor or otherwise, but simple observation suggests one significant contributor to the nation's job crisis -- for a long time, maybe even decades, we have been waging war on jobs and those who hold them.

That is exactly what the policies of the U.S. government have been doing for decades - they have been waging war on jobs.

Both political parties have been eagerly pushing us into a globalized economy. Both political parties have told us not to worry as thousands of businesses, millions of jobs and trillions of dollars have left the country.

Well, so much damage has been done by this point that more Americans than ever are starting to wake up and realize that maybe globalism is not such a great thing after all.

Here is how globalism has destroyed our jobs, our businesses and our national wealth in 10 easy steps....

#1 Globalism has merged the U.S. economy with economies that allow slave labor wages...

#2 U.S. companies make bigger profits by sending jobs overseas...

#3 Globalism has allowed foreign countries to dominate a whole host of industries that used to be dominated by the United States...

#4 Jobs and manufacturing infrastructure are being lost at an astounding pace and they are not going to come back...

#5 Workers without good jobs can't buy houses or cars...

#6 If American workers don't have jobs they aren't paying taxes...

#7 Instead of receiving taxes, the government must pay out money to our unemployed workers instead...

#8 As jobs and businesses leave our shores, many of our once great manufacturing cities have been transformed into hellholes...

#9 The United States ends up borrowing back most of the money that it sends overseas every single month...

#10 Foreign countries are using up some of the wealth that we send them every month to buy up our infrastructure...MORE...LINK

Congressman Ron Paul has joined the presidential race again, but with a difference: This time around, there’s no House seat to return to as a consolation prize. The Texas congressman, long known for holding the line on the U.S. Constitution, limited government, and sound economics, has announced his retirement from the House of Representatives, regardless of the outcome of his latest bid for the White House.

Perhaps it’s an early indicator of how seriously Ron Paul is taking his presidential campaign this time around that Ron Paul has already released a fireball of a campaign TV ad, focusing squarely on the debt limit debate and holding fellow lawmakers in both parties accountable for the budgetary mess we’re in. Not that Ron Paul didn’t take his 2008 run seriously — he ended up astonishing Beltway insiders for his ability to raise funds and for the innovative track his campaign took. But one sensed four years ago that Ron Paul himself was a bit surprised at how his campaign took off, fueled as much by the enthusiasm and creativity of his support base as by Ron Paul’s own initiative.

This time around, Ron Paul’s debut ad displayed the kind of slickness that a well-stocked war chest can buy. Crafted to resemble a movie trailer (which credits “Balanced Budget Productions in association with Ron Paul”), the ad reminds viewers that this summer’s debt limit fight has precedents in recent history, in which Republicans agreed to raise the debt ceiling and taxes in exchange for future budget cuts — only to see the budget cuts evaporate. It happened under President Reagan and it happened under Bush I. Now it’s happening again.

The production casts Paul, who opposes increasing the debt limit, as a man of conviction, not compromise...MORE...LINK-------------------------

...For months, the pundits and Washington think-tank know-it-alls have been in a tizzy: who do these unwashed peasants think they are? But of course we’ve got to raise the debt ceiling – after all, what about the "full faith and credit" of the United States? Don’t these denizens of flyover country realize they don’t have a choice in the matter? And now, with unmistakable finality, Wall Street has spoken in the form of Moody’s and S&P, the bonds rating agencies, which are threatening to downgrade US bonds if Congress fails to raise the limit.

This should give the ordinary American a clue as to what is at stake here, and who is on what side: it’s the Washington insiders and Wall Street versus the people of the United States – and the stakes are the fate of the nation...

The "left" version goes something like this:

The evil capitalists, in league with their bought-and-paid for cronies in government, destroyed and looted the economy until there was nothing left to steal. Then, when their grasping hands had reached the very bottom of the treasure chest, they dialed 911 and the emergency team (otherwise known as the US Congress) came to their rescue, doling out trillions to the looters and leaving the rest of America to pay the bill.

The "right" version goes something like the following:

Politically connected Wall Streeters, in league with their bought-and-paid-for cronies in government, destroyed and looted the economy until there was nothing left to steal. Then, when their grasping hands had reached the very bottom of the treasure chest, they dialed BIG-GOV-HELP and the feds showed up with the cash.

The first thing one notices about these two analyses, taken side by side, is their similarity: yes, the "left" blames the free market, and the "right" blames Big Government, but when you get past the blame game their descriptions of what actually happened look like veritable twins. And as much as I agree with the "right" about their proposed solution – a radical cut in government spending – it is the "left" that has the most accurate analysis of who’s to blame.

It is, of course, the big banks – the recipients of bailout loot, the ones who profited (and continue to profit) from the economic catastrophe that has befallen us...

In normal times, political movements are centered around elaborate ideologies, complex narratives that purport to explain what is wrong and how to fix it. They have their heroes, and their villains, their creation myths and their dystopian visions of a dark future in store if we don’t heed their call to revolution (or restoration, depending on whether they’re hailing from the "left" or the "right").

You may have noticed, however, that these are not normal times: we’re in a crisis of epic proportions, not only an economic crisis but also a cultural meltdown in which our social institutions are collapsing, and with them longstanding social norms. In such times, ideological categories tend to break down, and we’ve seen this especially in the foreign policy realm, where both the "extreme" right and the "extreme" left are calling for what the elites deride as "isolationism." On the domestic front, too, the "right" and "left" views of what’s wrong with the country are remarkably alike, as demonstrated above. Conservatives and lefties may have different solutions, but they have, I would argue, a common enemy: the banksters.

This characterization of the banking industry as the moral equivalent of gangsters has its proponents on both sides of the political spectrum, and today that ideological convergence is all but complete, with only "centrists" and self-described pragmatists dissenting. What rightists and leftists have in common, in short, is a very powerful enemy – and that’s all a mass political movement needs to get going...

It’s the bankers who will take the biggest hit if US bonds are downgraded: the investment bankers, who invested in such a dodgy enterprise as the US government, whose "full faith and credit" isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on. In a free market, these losers would pay the full price of their bad business decisions – in our crony-capitalist system, however, they win.

They win because they have the US government behind them — and because their strategy of degrading the dollar will reap mega-profits from American exporters, whose overseas operations they are funding. The "China market," and the rest of the vast undeveloped stretches of the earth that have yet to develop a taste for iPads and Lady Gaga, all this and more will be open to them as long as the dollar continues to fall.

That this will cripple the buying power of the average American, and raise the specter of hyper-inflation, matters not one whit of difference to the corporate and political elites that control our destiny: for with the realization of their vision of a World Central Bank, in which a new global currency controlled by them can be printed to suit their needs, they will be set free from all earthly constraints, or so they believe.

With America as the world policeman and the world banker – in alliance with our European satellites – the Washington elite can extend their rule over the entire earth. It’s true we won’t have much to show for it, here in America: with the dollar destroyed, we’ll lose our economic primacy, and be subsumed into what George Herbert Walker Bush called the "New World Order." Burdened with defending the corporate profits of the big banks and exporters abroad, and also with bailing them out on the home front when their self-created bubbles burst, the American people will see a dramatic drop in their standard of living – our sacrifice to the gods of "internationalism." That’s what they mean when they praise the new "globalized" economy.

Yet the American people don’t want to be sacrificed, either to corporate gods or some desiccated idol of internationalism, and they are getting increasingly angry – and increasing savvy when it comes to identifying the source of their troubles...MORE...LINK-------------------------

Raimondo: “With America as the world policeman and the world banker – in alliance with our European satellites – the Washington elite can extend their rule over the entire earth.”

Chris Moore comments:

That’s the key bit of knowledge average Americans need to understand -- that these elites and their stooges, which in addition to the political class, international corporatists and bankers, includes armies of lackeys on the federal payroll, do NOT represent the interests of average Americans, but rather the interests of their domestic gangster racket and their grandiose fantasy of world hegemony.

Of course, it’s totally delusional, and as average Americans and the rest of the world figures out neolib-neocon Washington needs to enslave the masses to keep this huge wealth-transfer Ponzi scheme afloat, it will all unravel quicker than Madoff’s racket.

But maybe that’s what the neo-Soviet “Homeland Security” big guns and the federal police state infrastructure like TSA are all about: keeping down the peasants (average Americans) when they've been reduced to poverty by runaway inflation so that the gangsters can continue to live high on the hog.

***

Raimondo: "This characterization of the banking industry as the moral equivalent of gangsters has its proponents on both sides of the political spectrum, and today that ideological convergence is all but complete, with only "centrists" and self-described pragmatists dissenting...In a free market, these losers would pay the full price of their bad business decisions – in our crony-capitalist system, however, they win. They win because they have the US government behind them..."

For a somewhat simplistic, but generally accurate assessment of the phenomenon of synthesis between the banksters and the Big Government Left, read anarchist Russian revolutionary Michael Bakunin on the symmetry between the crony capitalist bankster archetype (the Rothschilds) and the Marxists:

Bakunin: "This may seem strange. What can there be in common between Communism and the large banks? Oh! The Communism of Marx seeks enormous centralization in the state, and where such exists, there must inevitably be a central state bank, and where such a bank exists, the parasitic Jewish nation, which speculates on the work of the people, will always find a way to prevail..."

***

Some have suggested that the entire debt "crisis" is a myth invented by the Right in order to eviscerate social spending by the federal government.

It’s true that the neolib-neocon Marxist/bankster synthesis that comprises the federal leviathan will eventually attempt to plunder Social Security to keep itself alive, and has already talked about doing so, but the debt crisis is real. China is no longer buying our debt to pay for U.S. leviathan, and increasingly neither is anybody else. We’re having to buy our own debt through the Fed, which is the equivalent of an individual paying his bills by acquiring ever more credit cards, and counting on massive inflation to set in to make his past debt seem relatively small, but with absolutely no plan to pay any of it off.

Meanwhile, the banksters and international corporatists have plundered American industry, manufacturing, and even technology, and sent the jobs associated with them overseas to cheap labor countries.

The problem with America today is that there are few real patriots left who understand the values and discipline of the Founders that made America great, only parasites, money worshippers and Big Government grifters. Appreciation for the Founders and the value behind what they accomplished (liberation from centralist tyranny) was long bashed out of America by the Marxists, and later the neocons, and the short-term thinking "values" of atheist materialism (for the masses) inserted in their place.